An informed and compassionate essay on the inherent social equity in allowing marriage to include same gender couples. The author suggests that the religiously driven opponents to equal marriage rights ought to be pitied and quietly ignored.

I'm honoured to have interviewed retired Episcopalian Bishop (and acclaimed social justice author) John Shelby Spong, who is firm in his belief that bigotry can be "unlearned", however John has recently declared that he will no longer waste his breath arguing with people who claim that homosexuals ought to be discriminated against. I understand that he's saying some bigotted people will choose to never change their mind, and that energy is best devoted to the majority who can see reason. Dr Jennifer Wilson has composed a magnificent essay which appeals to that majority.

This is interesting.

Today I received an email/newsletter from a USA right-wing "catholic" outfit featuring an essay claiming that this development has signaled the end of civilization altogether. And that it is all downhill from now on unless a "conservative" counter-revolution can turn things around.

Meanwhile the world-wide human population is still increasing by how many millions a day? There is also 300 million Americans.

One of the many baffling arguments made by Christians against gay marriage is that marriage is intended for the production of children, and gays can't produce children.

(That's actually not true any more, but the Christians will say they mean produce children "naturally" if you challenge them.)

How then do Christians justify marriage for heterosexuals who don't want to produce children? Are these heterosexual couples sinning by refusing to do what is required of them?

DR WILSON.
You miss the point in your attempt here to add legitimacy to gay marriage and homosexuality passé. You postulate from a false premise that to be queer is to be normal. Sorry, but it isn’t. You attack Christianity for its moral stand against such disgusting acts as homosexuality. On that point alone you are simply plain wrong. You are also wrong to position your argument on a background of human rights. There are huge human rights issues in our sad and sorry world but legitimacy of homosexuality is not one of them. So in conclusion may I suggest to you that you waste your valuable talents flogging the dead horse of the “queer agenda”, as you seem to choose to do here in this format

Well, what do you know, there might be some reason to vote for little Julie after all.

Of course the other bloke, with any likelihood of getting many votes, will have a similar point of view here, I would expect.

No mention that in a recent referendum the people voted against same sex 'marriage' in California. Suddenly the 'liberals' no longer believe in democracy when they lose. Imagine what some perverted judge would do if we had a bill of wrongs.

Dear Runner - "Proposition 8 failed to "advance any rational basis" to deny gay men and lesbians a marriage license.

"Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples," Walker wrote.

"Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligations to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Thank you Dr Wilson for a well-thought out and compassionate article, from a gay man of 67, who has been with the same-sex partner for 38 years. In the meantime, about half of my siblings' and cousins' heterosexual marriages have failed. Doug.

Thank you, Jennifer Wilson!
Don't forget that Argentina also legalised Same-sex marriage last month, as the first Latin American country to do so.

Not that it should matter to Australians what other countries do or don't do, but it does show that it will be inevitable that in the future, Australia will accept same-sex marriage as the 'rippling effect' will reach our shores :)

I am very disappointed that Julia Gillard does not aim to 'move forward' in this area.
She doesn't even attempt to explain how she justifies discriminating against same-sex couples.
She merely claims that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, and that's it.
So what's a reason for discrimination against same-sex couples?

Just because she says so?

Diver dan,
Is it normal for one to ignore one's sexuality just to please some kind of out-dated religious morality?
Shouldn't ever adult be able to enjoy a relationship of their choice and be able to fully express their love for each other?

Is in normal to tell other adults who they can or cannot have sex with, or who they cannot marry?

Who decides what is normal anyway?

Just thought I'd let you all know (this "family values" thing), that I am doing the evening meal (Caesar salad) here on the West coast (Perth) whilst my 60 year-old male partner visits his 87 year-old mother in hospital.

I agree with the author that same sex marriage should be allowed in a secular society such as Australia. Legalising gay marriage has not caused the sky to fall in in other countries has it?

However, I do not agree with her flogging Julia Gillard's lifestyle choices just to make a point for gay marriage.

No one imagines that Julia made this decision about not allowing marriage for gay couples by herself do they?

It is obviously a party policy that was voted on by all the party members. She may or may not agree with it and may or may not have voted for it.

If the gay Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Penny Wong, was unable to procure legal gay marriage for the party, then what chance had Julia Gillard?

Most of the members of both major parties are apparently straight, married, Christian men with children.

What chance does a bill legalising gay marriage have with that lot? None.

suzeonline - there are interviews with Gillard over the last few years where she states that her personal view is that marriage is for women and men, not same sex couples.

The Marriage Act was changed in 2004 by the Howard government so that marriage can only be between men and women.

Prior to 2004 there was no such restriction on marriage in Australia.

The Act was deliberately amended by Howard to prevent gay marriage.

Well, “one lives and one learns”. Doug, you appear to me to be proud of your disease “homosexuality”. Unfortunately that pride (or is it insecurity) is a side effect of the illness; (for it was once treated as an illness did you know)?
I say “good on Johnny Howard” for his brazen stand against the tsunami of the march for homosexual rights. Here is a cheer for good old “straight” Californians, and their referendum success against gay marriage.
And “runner” , Do you really mean to say a “bill of Wongs” not a bill of wrongs? Keep that eye on the "wong ball"(pun) folks.
Suzieonline, worry-not, Bob Brown and his merry band, will do a marvellous trade for you on winning the balance of power in the senate, in the up-coming elections; I am sure.
And Celivea, In answer to your plea for the right to love, you have it. Could I suggest though you keep it private and cease from advertising the fact at gay mardigras.

Briar Rose, thanks for that information.

I wasn't aware that gay couples had ever legally married in Australia before Howard added the words -"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others...", in 2004?

The 1961 Marriage Act was ambiguously worded apparently, leading to some narrow minded people believing that homosexuals may actually be allowed to marry. (Shock/horror :-O )

Diver Dan, what are you afraid of if gays are given the right to marriage? It is a terribly old-fashioned and scientifically debunked view that homosexuality is a disease.

The disease of homophobia is far more sinister I believe.

Diver Dan: Suppose you were to discover that some of your closest and best friends were homosexual and had been all along. Suppose that until that time, you had not noticed a single thing about them that was in the slightest bit bad or unattractive. Would you be able to re-classify them instantly as abnormal and diseased?
Are you aware that it is is almost certain that some of your closest acquaintances are homosexual and that there are probably more homosexuals in your community, maybe even in your street, than left handers?
If you were in a position where you could rescue one occupant from a burning car before it exploded but not both, and you knew that one of them was a talented homosexual musician and the other was his heterosexual and very old and ill father, do you know which one you would rescue? Does that knowledge disturb you?

suzeonline - same sex marriage wasn't happening here prior to 2004, which only makes it more bizarre that Howard felt the need to make certain it wouldn't happen by re-wording the 1961 Marriage Act to legally prevent it.

In Rooty Hill last night, Gillard re-iterated that she and her party would not be amending the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage.

Diver Dan - enough, already. Stop spewing hate. What have you got against people loving one another?

Deliberately creating children to put them in a situation where they will never know either their father or their mother is moving forward?
Vilifying anybody who speaks out against such a travesty of natural justice is moving forward?
The “right” of somebody to have a child is greater than the natural rights of a child?
What is wrong with you people?
I know it’s the me generation but what about the children?

Briar Rose,

<<same sex marriage wasn't happening here prior to 2004, which only makes it more bizarre that Howard felt the need to make certain it wouldn't happen by re-wording the 1961 Marriage Act to legally prevent it.>>
"More bizarre"?
John Howard, like many of us, could see where the "gay" agenda was leading and had the vision to do something about it.

<<Stop spewing hate.>>
The standard line to shut down debate. No arguments, just vilification.
I personally don't hate any "gays".
I just care that we as a society create the best possible conditions for any child.
ie, we do not sanction that a child is deliberately deprived of a mother or a father, solely for the gratification of those whose behaviours naturally exclude them from natural parenthood.

<<What have you got against people loving one another?>>
What on earth stands in the way of "gays" loving one another?
Absolutely nothing.
Go love one another, just leave the children to their natural rights.

That’s the problem with “human rights”

Some things are not rights, they are privileges.

Whilst it is right to be free to copulate with the partner of one’s choice:

If that union, due to the technical detail, of not being from opposing sexes, is doomed not to issue forth progeny, then so be it.

There is no human right to the equal application of unnatural intervention,

And “artificial insemination” is, as its name implies not natural, just as same-sex relationships are not normal but abnormal.

Extending the “artificial” to the “abnormal” cannot be construed as a just application of what some claim to be a “human right”.

Whilst we must be tolerant of the abnormal,

Extending all the global definitions of “Human rights” is inappropriate

and since we have the future rights of a child involved,

Any “right of parenthood” should be limited to the rights of the “natural” and “normal”

I sympathise with gay people wanting to marry. Just as they want the right to marry, many heterosexual couples wish NOT to be married, but have no rights in this regard as the government marries them off.

In fact I believe the two are related. The reason de-facto laws were changed to give de-facto partners more rights (and hence responsibilities, when no contract has been entered into) was to appease gay people wanting to marry.

I'd much rather the governmnet had let gay people marry, and leave all the heterosexual de-facto couples the option of remaining unmarried under the law.

'And not only that: after Ms Gillard had been forced by public opinion to marry her partner, she would then have been forced by public opinion to produce children, on pain of being ostracised and regarded askance as either barren, poor thing, or selfishly bizarre.

Forced? What, would she go to jail?

Wow, I better watch out for this public opinion. It sounds even more scary than 'Societal expectations'.

'# Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. '

Looks like many de-facto couples have had their human rights violated.

'The reforms of 2008 give cohabiting ("de facto") same-sex couples access to the same federal rights that cohabiting opposite-sex couples have. The Rudd government with Gillard as Deputy PM was responsible for these reforms.'

Yes, these reforms are the very ones that further denied de-facto couples their human rights.

'# Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.'
The government has effectively married my partner and I. We have made no such commitment to each other. If we had wished to commit in this way, well, we would have got married. There is no free and full consent. I feel so violated. Am I not human? Do I not have rights?

It's a human rights issue.

Hi Briar Rose,
"The Act was deliberately amended by Howard to prevent gay marriage."
Thanks for that info. it's much appreciated. I can't believe that I missed this, I must've been living under a rock, back in 2004!

Suze,
Agreed!
I think that people suffering from phobias, including homophobia, should be diagnosed to see if they are suffering from a mental illness, and if they are, they should be treated.

Proxy and diver dan,
Can you show us evidence that (adopted)(adopted) children of same-sex couples is damaging to children?
All the research on this that *I* came across, shows that these children are thriving just as well, if not, better, than children of heterosexual couples.

And if you compare children of same-sex couples to children that live in orphanages, then of course the former group is doing significantly better!

Look at reality and evidence, not at outdated illogical nonsense if you want to form a fair opinion of these important issues.

With reference to a "moral stand against such disgusting acts as homosexuality." .. diver dan, Wednesday, 11 August 2010 3:19:30 PM

Homosexuality is not a choice: it is hard-wired; it is God-given. To deny that is immoral.

<" ...you appear to me to be proud of your disease “homosexuality”. Unfortunately that pride (or is it insecurity) is a side effect of the illness; (for it was once treated as an illness did you know)?">

Aw gee, I wonder if gay folk noticed.

A lot of human ways of being that have been non-conformist to the moralistic middle stream have been labeled "illness". It's a means of suppression.

For example, Governments in Russia and China are notorious for confining political dissidents for 'psychiatric illness'; the idea being that nobody of sound mind would challenge prevailing authority.

http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/26/12/443

Slaves wanting their freedom were labeled mentally ill, with a disease called Drapetomania.

the malady was a consequence of masters who "made themselves too familiar with [slaves], treating them as equals."[6]

"If any one or more of them, at any time, are inclined to raise their heads to a level with their master or overseer, humanity and their own good requires that they should be punished until they fall into that submissive state which was intended for them to occupy. They have only to be kept in that state, and treated like children to prevent and cure them from running away." [7]

In Diseases and Pecularities of the Negro Race, Cartwright writes that the Bible calls for a slave to be submissive to his master, and by doing so, the slave will have no desire to run away..."

Whipping was the prescribed 'cure'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

Women deemed deviant were incarcerated or sent to reform schools for sexual nonconformity, ie: having sex outside of marriage:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MjjLJJtlrzpS2qhlLhpJJbV911ySy9Nmp3VwzVZn76z4QS1ml3d6!190341322!1097832486?docId=96388698

http://www.windsorstar.com/health/conformity+creativity+quirkiness+There+pill+that/2971032/story.html?cid=megadrop_story

Don't prattle on about that psychiatric illness/abnormality rubbish.

Think of how much therapy and coercion, and for how long, it would take to make you enjoy and seek homosexual sexual encounters... because that's what you're demanding of people who are repelled by the idea of heterosexual sex.

Homosexuality IS normal for people who are gay.

Houellebecq,

>>I'd much rather the governmnet had let gay people marry, and leave all the heterosexual de-facto couples the option of remaining unmarried under the law.<<
I fully agree with you on this.

It should neither be of the government's, nor anybody else's business what kind of choices people make within their relationship.
Both heterosexual and homosexual couples should have both de-facto and marriage options available to them, otherwise it leads to unnecessary interfere with couple's freedom of choice.

Mc Real has got it right: One's sexual orientation is not something that one can choose, but is biologically determined.
And even if it was... so what? We all make choices that others might or might not agree with.

Stern,
>>"Any “right of parenthood” should be limited to the rights of the “natural” and “normal”<<
I don't really see why this should be so.
Even if people are attracted to the same sex, this doesn't have to take away their natural, and normal, desire to create a family and care for children, right?

It's hard to define 'normal' and 'natural' applied to this issue.
An estimated 5-10% of the population -of every population including in the animal kingdom- is homosexual. Isn't it natural and normal that a minority of any population is homosexual?
I would think it is a phenomena of nature, and not a good reason to justify discrimination against same-sex couples.

Doug,
I love your contributions, thank you.

I agree pynchme, but your last statement is pretty funny.

I'll get in first before the others...

Sex with children IS normal for people who are paedophiles.

The difference being of course that consensual gay sex hurts nobody.

With the right lube of course.

Cue pynchme's assertion not all gay guys have anal.

We seem to go over a lot of old ground on OLO...

Well folks, the debate on the pros and cons of homosexuality has fallen into its usual heap; but whereto from here? The article was a piece written for the exclusive benefit of the homosexual element, and I personally do not accept any of Dr Wilsons postulations: But then, I have little reason to accept her notions (which hopefully is what will remain of the quest for gay rights, confined to the basket of notionality( not a correct conjugation I know,any English teachers out there?)!). Keep on keep'n on.

In my experience those that are most opposed to homosexuality are usually closet homosexuals themselves. I wonder if Diver Dan has something to hide.

Houellebecq: Taking the cue - thanks! Funny but as I pressed send I had a faint inking that someone would raise the paedophile argument.

Anyway, as you H already know, but it bears repeating - It's not only the case that anal sex is not always the choice of homosexuals, but that it occurs amongst heterosexual couples too.

As to the paedophile thing, as you point out, we need to differentiate between sex between two adults who are willing participants and sex that exploits another who can't consent.

Excellent posts, Pynchme.

Well diver dan, you still haven't provided a logical reason as why same-sex marriage should remain illegal.

That's right, Rhys. There are some very well-known cases of strong anti-gay advocates who happened to be caught with male prostitutes, e.g. U.S. evangelical Christian Ted Haggard.

I do feel sad for them that their warped, indoctrinating environment caused them to feel that they either have to live a lie for the rest of their lives, or be sinful and end up in hell.
But I feel even more sorry for their wives.

So Rhys, when you say that the ones who protest too much might be gay themselves, you made a very good point.
Didn't he, Diver dan and Runner?

Get real, McReal.
<<Homosexuality is not a choice: it is hard-wired; it is God-given.>>
Tell that to former homosexual activists:
Linda Jernigan,
Charlene Coltrane,
Michael Glatze,
Jackie Clune,
Janet Boynes,
etc
<<To deny that is immoral.>>
Funny, they say that homosexual behaviour, like what they used to engage in, is immoral.

Rhys Jones,
<<In my experience those that are most opposed to homosexuality are usually closet homosexuals themselves.>>
Yeah,
like most people who oppose war are closet soldiers,
like most people who oppose abortion are closet abortionists,
like most people who oppose rape are closet rapists,
like most people who oppose global warming are closet global warmers,
like most people who oppose racism are closet racists,
like most people who oppose hate are closet haters,
like most people who oppose homophobia are closet homophobes,
etc.

That was a really clever and original thought you had there, Rhys.
Did you make it up yourself?

The difference between the pro gay marriage crowd and the anti gay marriage crowd is that the former isn't forcing anything on anyone, while the latter force their beliefs on the rest of us.

People who don't believe in gay marriage aren't going to do it, are they? But it isn't enough that the anti gay crowd get to control their own choices, they have this overpowering need to control everybody else's.

This is the worrying part - that the world is so teeming with people who want to have control over everybody else. And usually they profess some religion or other. But even sharing religion isn't enough for them - they always want to control just which religion their fellow religionists should have and it has to be the same as theirs.

These people are control freaks. Nobody should listen to control freaks.

McReal “Homosexuality is not a choice: it is hard-wired; it is God-given. To deny that is immoral.”

I do not think tolerating or denying homosexuality is the issue

Dictionary.com

Abnormal = “not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard”
Synonyms - “anomalous, aberrant, irregular, deviant, unnatural, queer, odd.”

And “homosexuality” is “abnormal”

I tolerate the “abnormal” but that does not mean I feel the "abnormal" are entitled, because of their own desires, to have extended to them the same rights and expectations as the “normal”


Celivia “Even if people are attracted to the same sex, this doesn't have to take away their natural, and normal, desire to create a family and care for children, right?”

Having a “desire” to do something does not endow upon us a “right” or entitlement to it

I might have a salacious desire concerning a particular lady but

That does not give me a right to “jump“ her

We have to consider her rights

and so too we have to reflect on the effects on a child, being raised in “abnormal” circumstances.

But like I said, it is pure self-indulgence for people to expect that

simply because they desire anything, they have an automatic right to acquire it.

Proxy, Thursday, 12 August 2010 7:13:59 PM

There are a few stories about individuals like that suppressing their homosexuality in the name of religion (usually Christianity) and publicising it, but that does not stop them being homosexual. There are plenty of examples in contemporary society - take the NSW politician David Campbell's recent outing as an example of how they have tried to fit in.

>>""I tolerate the “abnormal” but that does not mean I feel the "abnormal" are entitled, because of their own desires, to have extended to them the same rights and expectations as the “normal”<<
Posted by Stern, Friday, 13 August 2010 8:22:07 AM

How do you feel about heterosexuals engaging in oral sex; mutual masturbation; anal sex, etc.?

extending your views to rights is interesting ....

McReal "How do you feel about heterosexuals engaging in oral sex; mutual masturbation; anal sex, etc.?"

what happens between private individuals is between private individuals.... (depending on if they have washed before I am expected to kiss them or shake their hand)

but thnat has nothing to to with abnormality...

sex is a many splendid thing and

it is also a private thing -

expecting a right to bring a child into the world is not when you do not have the necessary combination of equipment is not.

being responsible for the care and development of a child is not is not either

so whats you view of "How do you feel about heterosexuals engaging in oral sex; mutual masturbation; anal sex, etc.?"

why not add BDSM, whips, leather and chains to the list whilst you are at it....

Stern, Friday, 13 August 2010 3:02:43 PM
""what happens between private individuals is between private individuals ....""

As long as no-one gets hurt physically or emotionally.

""(depending on if they have washed before I am expected to kiss them or shake their hand)
but that has nothing to to with abnormality... ""

Huh? washing regardless of whether they are dirty? Or is that to do with 'cleanliness is next to godliness' ??

""expecting a right to bring a child into the world ... when you do not have the necessary combination of equipment is not.""

The combination of equipment that I think you are alluding to (penis *and* vagina across the two parents) should not be relevant to bring a child into the world or raising it - unless one wants to use those things adversely ....

""being responsible for the care and development of a child is not either""

If 50yo Mohammed can marry 6yo Aisha
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm
why shouldn't men be allowed to marry men
and women marry women
and fathers marry their daughters
or their sons
and mothers marry their sons
or their daughters
and brothers marry their sisters
or their brothers
and sisters marry their sisters
and people marry their pets
and multiple people marry each other?
I wonder how long it will be before a man marries his dog
and then demands the right to adopt a child?
As long as the man and the dog love each other,
what possible objection could anybody have?
Studies carried out by men and their dogs
show that children who are raised by men and their dogs
are statistically better off than those raised by a mother and a father.
Which bigots would deny the right of a man and his dog to have their own child?
And what possible objection could there be to a parent marrying their same sex child?
There is no possibility of genetic deformities issuing from such couplings.
Surely only bigotry can explain the objections to all these diverse forms of marriage.
People are so narrow-minded.
They should be more tolerant of true diversity.

Proxy, your post callously reminded me that my dog turned down my proposal of marriage. How could you make me revisit that hurt?

Lol, McReal :)

Proxy,
Are dogs and children able to give informed consent, enter into a contract and sign?

Also, I kindly ask you to go back to my post in where I said -for your, Runner’s, AgiR’s, and diver dan’s edification- that there have been sufficient anti-gay advocates, who have been caught-out with homosexual prostitutes or lovers. You don’t have to take my word for it; google this topic and you will find examples.

So, the statement that Rhys made is based on evidence. He didn’t make it up, as you are suggesting. You need to accept that the ones who protest the loudest might have some issues with their own sexuality.

Briar Rose,
Control freaks, indeed! They need to get a life and live and let live.

Stern,
>>I might have a salacious desire concerning a particular lady but
That does not give me a right to “jump“ her
We have to consider her rights and so too we have to reflect on the effects on a child, being raised in “abnormal” circumstances.<<

Exactly. But this does not apply to same-sex marriage, which is consensual between two adults, who love each other.

As I asked (in general) in an earlier post, perhaps people can provide links to studies that confirm that children raised by same-sex parents are doing worse than those, who are raised by heterosexual parents.
The studies that I have come across indicate that these children do as well or even better than those of heterosexual couples.

The initial physical ‘equipment’ that is used to create children has no connection with the parenting abilities that couples have.
Very fertile couples could be violent criminals.

There are also children born to married couples who are blind, deaf, or disabled. Because these circumstances could, according to your definition of normal, also be called abnormal circumstances.

I find it hard to accept that even violent criminals can get married in jail (just because their ‘equipment’ is compatible), but law-abiding, loving homosexual couples do not have that choice.
I recall: http://tinyurl.com/289nxgx
.

>> ""... the ones who protest the loudest ....""
Celivia, Friday, 13 August 2010 8:28:19 PM

People reject popular opinions if they already hold opposing views ...

>> people grow more confident in some beliefs when they find out later that a majority of people disagree with them.

“It may be that you feel proud because you were able to disprove, in your own mind, an opinion that most people have accepted,” said Richard Petty, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Ohio State University.

“You actually become doubly sure you were right.” <<

http://scienceblog.com/37123/people-reject-popular-opinions-if-they-already-hold-opposing-views-study-finds/
.